9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The issue involved herein is whether the appellant is required to reverse and/or pay duty on removal of conveyor belt - scrap, vide invoice No. 19 dated 29.09.2005, valued at Rs. 4,89,600/-. 3. In the previous round, this Tribunal observed as follows:- "6. However, with regard to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the annexure attached to the show cause notice correspond to the calculation made by the adjudicating authority, then the appellant shall pay the amount equal to the duty leviable on removal of waste and scrap on conveyer belt, at the transaction value." 4. Learned Counsel Ms. Surbhi Sinha appearing for the appellant states that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that, the Adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crap, valued at Rs. 5,89,600/-. There is no allegation that the scrap, covered was generated out of conveyor belt on which cenvatable/ modvatable credit was taken in the year of purchase. Further, she also demonstrated from the paper book and the appeal record that as on 31.10.1994 (modvat scheme was introduced on capital goods w.e.f. 01.11.1994); the appellant had balance of Rs. 150610.8 and Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to produce the relevant details. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that Rule 5A of Rule 3 of CCR reads as follows:- (b) If the capital goods, on which cenvat credit has been taken, are removed after being used as waste and scrap, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall pay an amount equal to the duty payable on transaction value. I find that in absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
